Author: Alessandro Damiani
Date: 02:14:53 11/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2002 at 18:59:59, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 20, 2002 at 17:51:40, Alessandro Damiani wrote: > >>> >>>One final remark: You use standard R = 3 in DIEP. So the search tree constructed >>>by your program will definitely be smaller than that of verified R = 3. Many >>>people find standard R = 3 as too risky; but if you are happy with its overall >>>tactical strength, then I don't recommend you to shift to another method. But >>>for those who'd like to get greater tactical strength than standard R = 2, and a >>>smaller search tree than R = 2, I recommend to try verified null-move pruning. >>> >>>Best, >>> >>>Omid. >>> >> >>Vincent uses R = 3 and complex quiescence search (Vincent, correct me if I am >>wrong). Maybe your Verified Null-Move gives about the same results like R = 3 >>with a complex quiescence search. >> >>_If_ this is true then your approach is simpler and therefore better. Just my >>two thoughts before going to bed. Good nights....... >> >>Alessandro > >I do not believe that it gives the same results. I wrote "about the same result" which is not equal to "the same result". And I added "maybe". These words tells you that I am just guessing, nothing more, nothing less. >I do not know which algorithm is better but the >algorithms are different. > Right, to know and to guess are two different things. I am in the guess-phase. ;) >I believe that a third algorithm may be better than both of them. > BTW I won't use it. My preferred algorithm is Alpha Beta Conspiracy Search (ABC), and ABC already contains Verified Null-Move in a different way. BTW Verified Null-Move looks like an improvement of Fail High Reductions by the authors of Zugzwang. Alessandro
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.